\chapter{Discussion}
\label{chap:discussion}

First we want to outline how this discussion will reflect our research question. It is important to understand how we can generalize the analyses and link them to our research question. \bigskip

\noindent The research question says:

\begin{quote}

\textit{``How did different standardization interests among the Symbian shareholders affect its diffusion and competitiveness on the mobile platform market?''}

\begin{itemize}

\item \textit{How was the ecosystem affected?}
\item \textit{How was the ability to innovate affected?}

\end{itemize}

\end{quote}

\noindent Throughout the analysis we have discussed how issues inside Symbian can be explained from a standardization perspective relating the issues to key standardization concepts and existing literature. When we in our research question refer to 'standardization interests' we of course refer to the directly conflicting interests regarding standardization among the shareholders, but as written in \ref{subsec:elaboration} we also want to investigate how the issues of Symbian can be explained from a standardization perspective. If we only look at what David Levin and David Wood explicitly say about the directly conflicting interests regarding standardization there in not much to discuss, and we can conclude that standardization was not a problem in Symbian. But we have investigated what they implicitly and indirectly say about standardization and how the concepts of standardization can help us explain the different interests among the shareholders and understand the consequences - inability to innovate, ecosystem undermining and loss of market share. The analysis has also revealed that, despite David Levin and David Wood's refuse, standardization was somewhat a source of Symbian's failure. We will explain this in the following sections. \bigskip

\noindent First we will explain from a standardization point of view how and why Symbian lost its ability to innovate and as a consequence was out-competed, mainly by iOS and Android. Next we will discuss how this inability to innovate has affected Symbian's ability to maintain their de facto platform standards and how it has affected its diffusion in the market. At last we will do some scientific reflections to assess the validity and scientific value of our research.

%\section{Competition and Innovation}
%The three analyses depict a general picture of innovation retardation within Symbian. All three interviewees give the impression that when Nokia got more and more influence on the decisions and strategies of Symbian, it lead to an internal lock-in where Symbian was dependent on the funding from Nokia and at the same time was dominated by the this one shareholder. According to David Wood Nokia's purpose was to prevent competition from the other shareholders using Symbian as their weapon (this can also be depicted from what David Levin says). According to Blind, this have inherently resulted in a lack in innovation abilities, and Nokia's assumed  control and ownership of standards have resulted in high focus on self-interests, which according to Updegrove have jeopardized the collective goal of the shareholders. The loss of market share can be explained by Updegrove's statement, that \textit{``too close focus on self-interests is likely to lead to the creation of products that customers ignore.''} So, when Symbian got competition from Apple and Google, there was a pretty sudden and possibly very probable paradigm shift (according to the loss of market share). The superior reason for the conflicting interests and its consequences might be addressed to the initial formation of the Symbian consortium with a high degree of symmetric knowledge and the collective disloyalty to the initial mantra of cooperate before competing.

%Furthermore Symbian was not able to lock customers in to applications, which Moore concludes as an effective tool for crossing the chasm and increasing the installed base of users. Simply this can be interpreted as a situation where Symbian did not catalyse enough positive network effects, which inherently would have kept the customers locked in to their standards. \bigskip

%\noindent It seems appropriate to discuss the issues of Symbian in the light of system failures as defined by Swann \citep{SWANN}. 

%\section{Diffusion}

%\section{Scientific Reflections}